Petit Bourgeois

The trained "professional" is included in the petit-bourgeois as well.

Why though? I've never understood this. The notion of the "professional" being a petty bourgeois rather than a proletarian seems to adopt an amaterialist understanding of class by not seperating classes based on their differing relations to the means of production.

Why though? I've never understood this. The notion of the "professional" being a petty bourgeois rather than a proletarian seems to adopt an amaterialist understanding of class by not seperating classes based on their differing relations to the means of production.

"[FONT=Times New Roman]...Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers.[/FONT]"

If a bank manager don't open the bank up 9'0am sharp x5 days a week. He don't get paid.

The trained "professional" is included in the petit-bourgeois as well. The doctor, lawyer, manager, etc.

In short, a petty-bourgeoisie is someone who has his/her own means of production/service but don't has the capital to engage anybody to do work for him/her.

Actually, in short they are living example of dialectics

That doesn't make a bank manager a worker, nor should we recognize them as such.

Since they work for a wage and on until retirement, they cannot survive beyond a wage packet. That puts them firmly in the working class.

I am wiling to learn better about Petit Bourgeois, as how I understand in reality from my personal point of view they are kind of dangerous class, Would somebody can explain simple English why this class are so in danger?
Thanks and I am aware I get answers.

"D. Petty Bourgeoisie and Middle Class. The lower middle class or the petty (petite) bourgeoisie (the bourgeoisie was sometimes called the middle class in this era), constitutes "the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant" (Giddens and Held, p. 24). The characteristic of this class is that it does own some property, but not sufficient to have all work done by employees or workers. Members of this class must also work in order to survive, so they have a dual existence – as (small scale) property owners and as workers. Because of this dual role, members of this class have divided interests, usually wishing to preserve private property and property rights, but with interests often opposed to those of the capitalist class. This class is split internally as well, being geographically, industrially, and politically dispersed, so that it is difficult for it to act as a class. Marx expected that this class would disappear as capitalism developed, with members moving into the bourgeoisie or into the working class, depending on whether or not they were successful. Many in this class have done this, but at the same time, this class seems to keep recreating itself in different forms.

Marx considers the petite bourgeoisie to be politically conservative or reactionary, preferring to return to an older order. This class has been considered by some Marxists to have been the base of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s. At other times, when it is acting in opposition to the interests of large capital, it may have a more radical or reformist bent to it (anti-monopoly).

Note on the Middle Class. The issue of the middle class or classes appears to be a major issue within Marxian theory, one often addressed by later Marxists. Many Marxists attempt to show that the middle class is declining, and polarization of society into two classes is a strong tendency within capitalism. Marx's view was that the successful members of the middle class would become members of the bourgeoisie, while the unsuccessful would be forced into the proletariat. In the last few years, many have argued that in North America, and perhaps on a world scale, there is an increasing gap between rich and poor and there is a declining middle.

While there have been tendencies in this direction, especially among the farmers and peasantry, there has been no clear long run trend toward decline of the middle class. At the same time as there has been polarization of classes, there have been new middle groupings created. Some of these are small business people, shopkeepers, and small producers while others are professional and managerial personnel, and some intellectual personnel. Well paid working class members and independent trades people might consider themselves to be members of the middle class. Some segments of this grouping have expanded in number in recent years. While it is not clear that these groups hold together and constitute a class in any Marxian sense of being combined in opposition to other classes, they do form a middle grouping. Since Marx's prediction has not come true, sociologists and other writers have devoted much attention to explaining this middle grouping – what is its basis, what are the causes of its stability or growth, how it fits into the class structure, and what are the effects of its existence on proletariat and bourgeoisie."